Engagement and impact will be part of research performance assessment starting in 2018, signalling a shift in what kind of research we value and why.
South Africa must act to halt the decline and save its universities' well deserved global reputation of excellence.
A team of archaeologists strived to improve the reproducibility of their results, influencing their choices in the field, in the lab and during data analysis.
Partly in response to the so-called 'reproducibility crisis' in science, researchers are embracing a set of practices that aim to make the whole endeavor more transparent, more reliable – and better.
There are major systemic problems associated with peer review that are negatively affecting scientific credibility.
There is a very real risk that South Africa's major research projects will stumble and the whole research machine will be shut down by ongoing student protests.
Embracing more rigorous scientific methods would mean getting science right more often than we currently do. But the way we value and reward scientists makes this a challenge.
South Africa must examine how science funding is allocated to universities. It also needs to acknowledge that not all universities should be focusing on research and development.
Recommendations in a new report aim to stamp out game-playing when it comes to the Research Excellence Framework.
Engagement is not impact, and simple measures such as non-government research income tell us very little about genuine external engagement between universities and industry.
India has invested hugely in to reforming its higher education sector – Australia must view this as an opportunity to capitalise on this growth through partnerships and training schemes.
The new impact framework will improve some of the problems arising out of the ERA's university research audit, but major challenges will remain.